Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

Forum tries to give answers to health care questions

November 21, 2013

MARSHALL — By now, many Minnesotans already know there are some big changes on the horizon for their health care insurance coverage....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(65)

Pirate

Dec-04-13 4:34 PM

Where will those healthy people come from Hartman? The Millennials? You remember them. A large block that went with the trendy vote and helped O into office. They’re the ones whose backs the weight of Obamacare is being placed on. His alma mater’s Millennial poll found that only 22 percent intend to sign up. It’s always interesting how people react when they find out that everything has a cost, including Socialism and free lunches. It’s not quite as cool when you get handed the bill.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Dec-04-13 3:14 PM

A free market is not one in which your are forced to buy something, but I'll play along. Who might this group be that you're talking about. Who are these millions of people who are going to pay more in premiums than they use? Since people with pre-existing conditions will use more than they pay, who is offsetting that? You like putting people into groups. What group would the majority of these people who will now be paying more in premiums than they use consist of?

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Dec-04-13 2:19 PM

"When you introduce those people (with preexisting conditions) into the plan, the costs have to go up for everyone."

And when you introduce the millions of healthier people that don't have insurance into the market, the price of premiums will go down for everyone. Because, in fact, premium rates are based on the market. That's how a free market works. Its not hard to understand. Common sense tells you that judging the effectiveness of the ACA in reducing overall health care costs will take time Merritt.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Dec-04-13 1:18 PM

It's right here for you Hartman. Please understand. If you are truly able to higher women for lower wages and they were able to provide the exact same capabilities, every business would higher women first to maximize their profits. They would do this because the free market does not discriminate. The free market does not care if the person is a woman, man, or machine. They want to maximize profits. Insurance companies don't cover people with pre-existing conditions, because those people will use more money than they pay in. When you introduce those people into the plan, the costs have to go up for everyone. This takes us back to the original point. Common sense tells you that when you add people into a plan who have pre-existing conditions, the rate will go up for everyone. It's not hard to understand.

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Dec-04-13 12:26 PM

In one sentence, you speculate a business would increase their profit margin by hiring women and paying them less then claim discrimination would put that business at a disadvantage. How does a higher profit margin create a disadvantage?

You ask, “How would the free market not reduce discrimination?”

A “true free market” exists ONLY to maximize profits by providing a product or service. There is no intrinsic value of promoting social justice in a free market because economic values cause businesses to modify their behavior, not social values. In some cases free markets can actually propagate discrimination; (e.g. insurance companies discriminated against individuals with preexisting conditions). Be sure to attend the next forum Merritt, so you can get the facts about the ACA instead of the misinformation promulgated by conservatives.

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Dec-03-13 11:18 PM

Your women making less than men argument is weak. If it were true, I would simply hire all women who have the exact same capabilities as men and pay them less. My company would have a higher profit margin and my competitor would have to then do the same. In a true free market, discrimination, sexism, racism, etc. is a disadvantage to a company.

4 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sumyounguy

Dec-02-13 7:25 PM

Merritt was crystal clear. Hartman, you must look within yourself to find what blocks you from understanding.

2 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sumyounguy

Dec-02-13 7:19 PM

"Congrats Merritt, you are an idiot." If that's not name calling, what the H is?

2 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Dec-02-13 6:04 PM

I did not call you a name Merritt. It’s a simple fact and simple truth that in today’s world an individual who believes women are paid less than men because they are less capable is stupid; i.e.: an idiot. Take ownership of that fact.

Insurance companies operate under the same rules, whether established by the A.M.A. or govt. Therefore, insurance premiums are based on supply & demand within the market, not govt. Is mandating that all practicing physicians be licensed considered “govt. interference”? The govt. also mandates minimum requirements related to vehicle safety and performance. All auto manufacturers must adhere to similar standards, therefore vehicle pricing is dictated by supply & demand. Govt. interference in a market occurs when price fixing, quotas or subsidies are used to provide stability within a market. The agricultural and energy industries are great examples. Clearly explain which government regulations changed the insurance market. Stay on topic.

10 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Dec-01-13 6:41 PM

Your failure to see the connection between the actions of Franklin Raines and the Democrats the blocked regulation on Freddie and Fannie also leaves something to be desired. Your idea of picking apart that idea is the typical liberal rhetoric about gay marriage. Instead of coming up with a logical reply, you call me an idiot and say I have no regard for facts or truth. Please enlighten me because nothing you say has made me see the light.

4 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Dec-01-13 6:20 PM

"My earlier comments did pick apart your attempt to claim the govt interfered with health care premiums." - You're joking right? I clearly explained how government regulations changed the market. If you can't see the connection, I'm afraid your name-calling should be directed toward yourself.

3 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sumyounguy

Dec-01-13 12:43 AM

Hartman, you're falling apart. That's a sign of an opportunity for growth. Hang in here, healing is right around the corner.

2 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Nov-30-13 10:28 PM

"...you're never going to be able to get passed this idea that things aren't fair."

That,s funny Merritt since your comments began with the complaint that because of the ACA it was "unfair" your health care premium increased. No kidding, life is not fair. My earlier comments did pick apart your attempt to claim the govt interfered with health care premiums. Your reply was an inane rant full Republican rhetoric blaming the entire economic collapse in 2008 on a Bill passed in 1977.

"Then again, there are no votes to be gained when you tell people that they make less because of their abilities instead of their gender or color."

Its a proven fact women who hold the SAME jobs as men are paid less but here you are claiming women make less because they are less capable. Congrats Merritt, you are an idiot.

10 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Nov-30-13 10:37 AM

It's funny Hartman, I've given plenty of examples that you should easily be able to pick apart and prove that I'm wrong and instead you use generalization and dismiss my comments instead of explaining why I am wrong. Is racism going to go away completely due to the free market? No. Is it going to go away if we have quotas? Absolutely not, in fact, if a company is forced to hire a certain number of individuals instead of hiring the best, it is more likely to cause racism. It is the Democrat party and liberals who put labels on people. Until you get over this idea that you need to group people by color and sex only, you're never going to be able to get passed this idea that things aren't fair. Then again, there are no votes to be gained when you tell people that they make less because of their abilities instead of their gender or color. Divide and conquer.

3 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Nov-30-13 10:15 AM

Don't get confused Hartman. I am talking about economic regulations. What you are talking about are social/moral/cultural issues that have little to do with what I'm talking about. How would the free market not reduce discrimination? As a business, you need to sell. People don't care what color the customer is as long as the money is green. That green money puts food on the table for their families. If a black woman can make me more money than a white man, you better know who I am going to hire. If I don't, my competitor will and they will take business from me. Look at baseball. Why didn't it just end with the Brooklyn Dodgers? True competition is colorblind.

3 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sumyounguy

Nov-30-13 9:02 AM

Merritt is right. Hartman, your steady diet of misinformation is clouding your judgment. Perhaps you've experienced something that has reinforced your views. Whatever the cause, it isn't allowing you to see things clearly. I, too, started on your side, but with memory and a strong desire for truth one can figure out where the dark forces lie. The democrat party of JFK was about where many in the republican party are now. The democrat party led by progressives has lurched far left, along with the controlling media, thus the situation we find ourselves in. Drop the bitterness and search deeper for cause and effect. If you really try to do that, I think you will end up thanking me.

2 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Nov-30-13 1:03 AM

Merritt, I think you could do better than regurgitate Republican propaganda from Breitbart dot com. It appears you have been deceived...by Republicans who want to regulate marriage, abortion, voting; none of which have anything to do with "regulating" the govt. Obviously fact or truth don't matter to you. The idea that racism can be eliminated by the "free market" is ludicrous. Capitalism will not make discrimination "go away". Now you claim "liberal" minded individuals have created multiple accounts just to increase the number of "disagrees" on "conservative" posts? You seem quite comfortable wallowing in your self pity Merritt. Eat more turkey.

10 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Nov-29-13 3:02 PM

Answer: Deceit. You can see it everywhere. You can even see it on the agrees and disagrees on this forum. There are individuals with several accounts that log on with their different accounts and vote 8 times to make it appear that people agree with your point of view. I've watched it happen. The same 8 votes show up at the same time, in 5 minute intervals and then the voting doesn't change again for several hours/days. It's fascinating. Unless you'd like us to believe the same people happen to log on at the same time all the time?

2 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Nov-29-13 2:56 PM

So again, we need to get back to the original question to describe Democrats:

ncompetence or deceit?

2 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Nov-29-13 2:54 PM

"All I hear from Republicans is how regulations and oversight kill jobs and economic growth." - Republicans were trying to regulate the government. That is completely different than regulating the free market. When we talk about regulations that slow down growth we are talking about things like red-lining. The costs and time associated with proving that you are not discriminating are unnecessary regulations in a free market. If your business acts in a racist manner in a true free market economy, your competitor is going to come in and do that business and put you at a disadvantage. It is bad business to discriminate. You hurt yourself by acting that way so as companies evolve, discrimination will naturally go away. Unfortunately, government inserts themselves into the equation in the name of helping and causes more problems than it fixes. It seems to me that they insert themselves to increase their own power and control more than to "fix" problems.

2 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Nov-29-13 1:03 PM

Why didn't Republicans push it through? Because of the politics of it. If you want to increase regulations on an entity at the time that had been successful in increasing the number of poor and minorities into housing, what would happen if Republicans did the right thing and push for regulation. We'd be attacked for being racist. It doesn't matter that it is the right thing to do, your side doesn't care about that. Now, we are doing it again with healthcare and there are strikingly similar behaviors toward Ted Cruz when he stands up for what is right.

3 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Nov-29-13 12:04 PM

That's because Raines was transforming Fannie Mae from a boring but stable financial institution dedicated to making homes more affordable into a risky venture that abused its special status as a "Government Sponsored Enterprise" (GSE) for Raines' personal profit. Fannie bought the bad loans and bundled them together with good ones. Wall Street was glad to buy up these mortgage securities because Fannie Mae was deemed a government-insured behemoth "too big to fail." And others followed Fannie's lead.

As a bank, you can either do what is right and go out of business or do what everyone else is doing and make money. The goal of a business is to create profit for stakeholders, so they basically don't have a choice. It is the government who manipulated the market to cause the crisis. The bottom line is if government hadn't gotten involved, we would have had a different outcome.

2 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Nov-29-13 11:59 AM

Franklin Raines, the Clinton-appointed former head of Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2004, made it his top priority to make mortgages easier to get for people with poor credit, few assets and little money for a down payment.

The fine print to this noble intent was an ill-conceived loosening of standards. For instance, the Clinton administration reinterpreted the Jimmy Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act to politicize lending practices. Under the CRA, the government forced banks to prove they weren't "redlining" — i.e., discriminating against minorities -— by approving loans to minorities and various left-wing "community group" shakedown artists whether they were bad risks or not. (A young Barack Obama got his start with exactly these sorts of groups.) Sen. Phil Gramm called it a vast extortion scheme against America's banks. Still, the banks were perfectly happy to pass the risky loans to Raines' Fannie Mae, which was happy to buy them up.

3 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sumyounguy

Nov-28-13 12:28 PM

Hart, the filibuster. You know, that thing we used to have. The thing that Biden said he hoped when the demonrats got back in power they wouldn't make a "naked power grab" to get rid if.

3 Agrees | 13 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Nov-28-13 10:39 AM

Republicans controlled Congress AND the White House from 2002-2006, Merritt. So if Republicans really believed greater regulation of lending practices was needed, why didn't they pass the necessary legislation? All I hear from Republicans is how regulations and oversight kill jobs and economic growth.

12 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 65 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web